Assimilation versus multiculturalism

Assimilation versus multiculturalism. By Handre:

Rome grew for five centuries by absorbing outsiders on one condition: they had to become Roman.

Trajan came from Spain, and Septimius Severus came from Libya. Newcomers learned Latin, served in the legions, took Roman names, and became citizens of the empire.

Emperor Trajan, 117 AD

In 376, the Goths [settled] inside the empire as an autonomous people, the first time Rome admitted an entire Germanic nation as a unit. Nobody asked them to become Roman. They kept their own leaders, warriors, and church.

Alaric, a Gothic commander holding a Roman military post, sacked Rome in 410, and in 476 a Germanic general, Odoacer, deposed the last Western emperor. …

Lesson learned the hard way:

A society absorbs newcomers as fast as it can teach them its ways. Beyond that rate, newcomers keep their own ways, and the host culture shrinks into a minority within its own borders. In both cases, rulers made the decision, and the provincials who lived beside the newcomers paid for it.

Either they assimilate into the host culture, or the host culture falls to the newcomers.

Now, increasingly as their numbers grow, Muslims in Australia vote for Muslims, Indians for Indians, and so on.

Commentary Australian Greens:

“We are giving vote to him because he is in Tarneit [a suburb in Melbourne’s west]. We will like you to support him because he is in Tarneit… He is the best person I know him from the last 20 years.”

This is what the Greens have reduced politics to.

Utter incompetence and zero ideas. It has become about the mass migration of voting blocs who only vote for their own.

There are entire blocs now where Muslims vote for Muslims, Indians vote for Indians, and so on. And that is not how we maintain social cohesion as a society. This fragmentation has to end.